This route is valid according to MileageMonkey but I thought the second transit through hkg would break the rules.

Is it valid?

mru-lhr-jfk-hkg-syd-hkg-jnb-mru

More importantly would BA in MRU consider it valid?

Also people have reported problems getting these issued in MRU (this would be my first time) so I've been put off up to now. I've found availability according to ExpertFlyer but from other posts that doesn't always count for much.

Any advice/ recent experience or specific contacts in MRU appreciated.

Thanks.

<deleted to think about it>

On second thoughts: I think that to make it work you will have to go ...JFK-SYD-HKG... because right now you have two entries in Asia and none of them is a direct flight SWP-EUR.

Can't help with the MRU end but my understanding is that it would be valid if one or other of the HKG transits were to be a 'transit with no stopover'. (If that were the case, you might as well go jfk-syd-hkg-jnb-mru or jfk-hkg-syd-jnb-mru, if there's availability.)

I tried validating your itinerary against the oneworld.com itinerary checker & that wanted the second HKG transit to be 'no stopover' (but was otherwise happy), but I believe that the rules require one or other transit to be 'no stopover' rather than only the second.

FYI, BA in MRU is now required to validate all itineraries through LHR RTW rate desk. They are no longer allowed to do this themselves.

The "transit without stopover" language regarding a second entry into Asia has been tossed around ceaselessly for the past couple of years. However, Viajero's interpretation is the one now almost universally cited - the second entry is only valid if it's on a SWP < > Europe itinerary, not NA < > SWP.

The OW itinerary validator is still buggy and not to be relied upon. Only one of the airlines can authorize an itinerary.

The Starfile at this point is a wonderful example of ambiguous language:

40N . * 2 PERMITTED IN ASIA WHEN 1 IS A TRANSFER
41N . WITHOUT STOPOVER OR ON DIRECT SINGLE PLANE
42N . SERVICE BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AND
43N . EUROPE.

If practice dictates that the more restrictive interpretation (that between SWP & Europe applies to both transfer w/o stopover and direct single plane service) is used, then the OP is sunk.

In this case, it appears that MileageMonkey has also fallen into the same trap. With language like that, it's hardly surprising. At the risk of doing OW's work for them, if this is really what is meant, it could perhaps be rewritten as:

2 PERMITTED IN ASIA WHEN 1 IS BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AND EUROPE AND IS A TRANSFER WITHOUT STOPOVER OR ON DIRECT SINGLE PLANE SERVICE.

Yes, but we have to deal with realities here. The fact is that in practical terms the only interpretation valid for the airlines is the restrictive one, and it has been like that for years now, so arguing the finer points of the rule syntax is pointless.